Evaluating First Year Agriculture Teachers’ Use of Reflection

Reflection is a useful tool which improves teaching approaches; however, many first-year teachers do not appear to reflect upon their instructional plans (McAlpine & Weston, 2000). Prior research has indicated preservice teachers are not utilizing the acquired reflective approaches learned throughout the teacher preparation program (Hatton & Smith, 1995; Kagan & Tippins, 1992; Reynolds, 1993). It is believed teachers fail to implement reflective practice in their professional practice because they have not acquired the pedagogical knowledge to effectively reflect (McAlpine & Weston, 2000). The primary purpose of this study was to determine if beginning agricultural education teachers employed a systematic approach of reflection, determine what components of the teacher preparation program aided in learning, how to reflect, and to examine first-year teachers’ gratification with the reflective approaches learned from Iowa State University agricultural education teacher preparation program. The study drew on the theoretical framework of John Dewey and Donald Schon in support of reflection throughout an educator’s professional teaching career. This qualitative study consisted of phone interviews with six first-year secondary teachers who graduated from the teacher preparation program. All first-year teachers employed a systematic reflection approach and preferred the following approaches to reflection: written reflection, verbal reflection, or through internal dialogue. First-year teachers indicated they learned how to reflect from student teaching, the tuning protocol process, and in core classes. However, they indicated preservice teachers need more exposure to reflection during their student teaching experience and throughout coursework

Evaluating First Year Agriculture Teachers’ Use of Reflection

Reflection is a useful tool which improves teaching approaches; however, many first-year teachers do not appear to reflect upon their instructional plans (McAlpine & Weston, 2000). Prior research has indicated preservice teachers are not utilizing the acquired reflective approaches learned throughout the teacher preparation program (Hatton & Smith, 1995; Kagan & Tippins, 1992; Reynolds, 1993). It is believed teachers fail to implement reflective practice in their professional practice because they have not acquired the pedagogical knowledge to effectively reflect (McAlpine & Weston, 2000). The primary purpose of this study was to determine if beginning agricultural education teachers employed a systematic approach of reflection, determine what components of the teacher preparation program aided in learning, how to reflect, and to examine first-year teachers’ gratification with the reflective approaches learned from Iowa State University agricultural education teacher preparation program. The study drew on the theoretical framework of John Dewey and Donald Schon in support of reflection throughout an educator’s professional teaching career. This qualitative study consisted of phone interviews with six first-year secondary teachers who graduated from the teacher preparation program. All first-year teachers employed a systematic reflection approach and preferred the following approaches to reflection: written reflection, verbal reflection, or through internal dialogue. First-year teachers indicated they learned how to reflect from student teaching, the tuning protocol process, and in core classes. However, they indicated preservice teachers need more exposure to reflection during their student teaching experience and throughout coursework.This article is published as Meder, A., Smalley, S., & Retallick, M. S. (2018). Evaluating first year agriculture teachers’ use of reflection. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(2), 289-304. doi: 10.5032/jae.2018.02289. Posted with permission.</p

Identification of Novel SNPs in Glioblastoma Using Targeted Resequencing

High-throughput sequencing opens avenues to find genetic variations that may be indicative of an increased risk for certain diseases. Linking these genomic data to other “omics” approaches bears the potential to deepen our understanding of pathogenic processes at the molecular level. To detect novel single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), we used a combination of specific target selection and next generation sequencing (NGS). We generated a microarray covering the exonic regions of 132 GBM associated genes to enrich target sequences in two GBM tissues and corresponding leukocytes of the patients. Enriched target genes were sequenced with Illumina and the resulting reads were mapped to the human genome. With this approach we identified over 6000 SNPs, including over 1300 SNPs located in the targeted genes. Integrating the genome-wide association study (GWAS) catalog and known disease associated SNPs, we found that several of the detected SNPs were previously associated with smoking behavior, body mass index, breast cancer and high-grade glioma. Particularly, the breast cancer associated allele of rs660118 SNP in the gene SART1 showed a near doubled frequency in glioblastoma patients, as verified in an independent control cohort by Sanger sequencing. In addition, we identified SNPs in 20 of 21 GBM associated antigens providing further evidence that genetic variations are significantly associated with the immunogenicity of antigens

Long-Term Toxicity and Health-Related Quality of Life After Adjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy or Radiation Therapy Alone for High-Risk Endometrial Cancer in the Randomized PORTEC-3 Trial

PURPOSE: The survival results of the PORTEC-3 trial showed a significant improvement in both overall and failure-free survival with chemoradiation therapy versus pelvic radiation therapy alone. The present analysis was performed to compare long-term adverse events (AE) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS AND MATERIALS: In the study, 660 women with high-risk endometrial cancer were randomly assigned to receive chemoradiation therapy (2 concurrent cycles of cisplatin followed by 4 cycles of carboplatin/paclitaxel) or radiation therapy alone. Toxicity was graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0. HRQOL was measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 and CX24/OV28 subscales and compared with normative data. An as-treated analysis was performed. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 74.6 months; 574 (87%) patients were evaluable for HRQOL. At 5 years, grade ≥2 AE were scored for 78 (38%) patients who had received chemoradiation therapy versus 46 (24%) who had received radiation therapy alone (P = .008). Grade 3 AE did not differ significantly between the groups (8% vs 5%, P = .18) at 5 years, and only one new late grade 4 toxicity had been reported. At 3 and 5 years, sensory neuropathy toxicity grade ≥2 persisted after chemoradiation therapy in 6% (vs 0% after radiation therapy, P < .001) and more patients reported significant tingling or numbness at HRQOL (27% vs 8%, P < .001 at 3 years; 24% vs 9%, P = .002 at 5 years). Up to 3 years, more patients who had chemoradiation therapy reported limb weakness (21% vs 5%, P < .001) and lower physical (79 vs 87, P < .001) and role functioning (78 vs 88, P < .001) scores. Both treatment groups reported similar long-term global health/quality of life scores, which were better than those of the normative population. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a long-lasting, clinically relevant, negative impact of chemoradiation therapy on toxicity and HRQOL, most importantly persistent peripheral sensory neuropathy. Physical and role functioning impairments were seen until 3 years. These long-term data are essential for patient information and shared decision-making regarding adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk endometrial cancer

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): patterns of recurrence and post-hoc survival analysis of a randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: The PORTEC-3 trial investigated the benefit of combined adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy versus pelvic radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer. We updated the analysis to investigate patterns of recurrence and did a post-hoc survival analysis. METHODS: In the multicentre randomised phase 3 PORTEC-3 trial, women with high-risk endometrial cancer were eligible if they had International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage I, endometrioid grade 3 cancer with deep myometrial invasion or lymphovascular space invasion, or both; stage II or III disease; or stage I-III disease with serous or clear cell histology; were aged 18 years and older; and had a WHO performance status of 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive radiotherapy alone (48·6 Gy in 1·8 Gy fractions given on 5 days per week) or chemoradiotherapy (two cycles of cisplatin 50 mg/m2 given intravenously during radiotherapy, followed by four cycles of carboplatin AUC5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 given intravenously), by use of a biased coin minimisation procedure with stratification for participating centre, lymphadenectomy, stage, and histological type. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival and failure-free survival. Secondary endpoints of vaginal, pelvic, and distant recurrence were analysed according to the first site of recurrence. Survival endpoints were analysed by intention-to-treat, and adjusted for stratification factors. Competing risk methods were used for failure-free survival and recurrence. We did a post-hoc analysis to analyse patterns of recurrence with 1 additional year of follow-up. The study was closed on Dec 20, 2013; follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN14387080, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00411138. FINDINGS: Between Nov 23, 2006, and Dec 20, 2013, 686 women were enrolled, of whom 660 were eligible and evaluable (330 in the chemoradiotherapy group, and 330 in the radiotherapy-alone group). At a median follow-up of 72·6 months (IQR 59·9-85·6), 5-year overall survival was 81·4% (95% CI 77·2-85·8) with chemoradiotherapy versus 76·1% (71·6-80·9) with radiotherapy alone (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·51-0·97], p=0·034), and 5-year failure-free survival was 76·5% (95% CI 71·5-80·7) versus 69·1% (63·8-73·8; HR 0·70 [0·52-0·94], p=0·016). Distant metastases were the first site of recurrence in most patients with a relapse, occurring in 78 of 330 women (5-year probability 21·4%; 95% CI 17·3-26·3) in the chemoradiotherapy group versus 98 of 330 (5-year probability 29·1%; 24·4-34·3) in the radiotherapy-alone group (HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·55-0·99]; p=0·047). Isolated vaginal recurrence was the first site of recurrence in one patient (0·3%; 95% CI 0·0-2·1) in both groups (HR 0·99 [95% CI 0·06-15·90]; p=0·99), and isolated pelvic recurrence was the first site of recurrence in three women (0·9% [95% CI 0·3-2·8]) in the chemoradiotherapy group versus four (0·9% [95% CI 0·3-2·8]) in the radiotherapy-alone group (HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·17-3·33]; p=0·71). At 5 years, only one grade 4 adverse event (ileus or obstruction) was reported (in the chemoradiotherapy group). At 5 years, reported grade 3 adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups, occurring in 16 (8%) of 201 women in the chemoradiotherapy group versus ten (5%) of 187 in the radiotherapy-alone group (p=0·24). The most common grade 3 adverse event was hypertension (in four [2%] women in both groups). At 5 years, grade 2 or worse adverse events were reported in 76 (38%) of 201 women in the chemoradiotherapy group versus 43 (23%) of 187 in the radiotherapy-alone group (p=0·002). Sensory neuropathy persisted more often after chemoradiotherapy than after radiotherapy alone, with 5-year rates of grade 2 or worse neuropathy of 6% (13 of 201 women) versus 0% (0 of 187). No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: This updated analysis shows significantly improved overall survival and failure-free survival with chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone. This treatment schedule should be discussed and recommended, especially for women with stage III or serous cancers, or both, as part of shared decision making between doctors and patients. Follow-up is ongoing to evaluate long-term survival. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society, Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council, Project Grant, Cancer Australia Grant, Italian Medicines Agency, and the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3) : final results of an international, open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: Although women with endometrial cancer generally have a favourable prognosis, those with high-risk disease features are at increased risk of recurrence. The PORTEC-3 trial was initiated to investigate the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy during and after radiotherapy (chemoradiotherapy) versus pelvic radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer. METHODS: PORTEC-3 was an open-label, international, randomised, phase 3 trial involving 103 centres in six clinical trials collaborating in the Gynaecological Cancer Intergroup. Eligible women had high-risk endometrial cancer with FIGO 2009 stage I, endometrioid-type grade 3 with deep myometrial invasion or lymph-vascular space invasion (or both), endometrioid-type stage II or III, or stage I to III with serous or clear cell histology. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive radiotherapy alone (48·6 Gy in 1·8 Gy fractions given on 5 days per week) or radiotherapy and chemotherapy (consisting of two cycles of cisplatin 50 mg/m 2 given during radiotherapy, followed by four cycles of carboplatin AUC5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2) using a biased-coin minimisation procedure with stratification for participating centre, lymphadenectomy, stage of cancer, and histological type. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival and failure-free survival. We used the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox regression analysis for final analysis by intention to treat and adjusted for stratification factors. The study was closed on Dec 20, 2013, after achieving complete accrual; follow-up is ongoing. PORTEC-3 is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN14387080, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00411138. RESULTS: 686 women were enrolled between Nov 23, 2006, and Dec 20, 2013. 660 eligible patients were included in the final analysis, of whom 330 were assigned to chemoradiotherapy and 330 were assigned to radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 60·2 months (IQR 48·1-73·1). 5-year overall survival was 81·8% (95% CI 77·5-86·2) with chemoradiotherapy versus 76·7% (72·1-81·6) with radiotherapy (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·76, 95% CI 0·54-1·06; p=0·11); 5-year failure-free survival was 75·5% (95% CI 70·3-79·9) versus 68·6% (63·1-73·4; HR 0·71, 95% CI 0·53-0·95; p=0·022). Grade 3 or worse adverse events during treatment occurred in 198 (60%) of 330 who received chemoradiotherapy versus 41 (12%) of 330 patients who received radiotherapy (p<0·0001). Neuropathy (grade 2 or worse) persisted significantly more often after chemoradiotherapy than after radiotherapy (20 [8%] women vs one [1%] at 3 years; p<0·0001). Most deaths were due to endometrial cancer; in four patients (two in each group), the cause of death was uncertain. One death in the radiotherapy group was due to either disease progression or late treatment complications; three deaths (two in the chemoradiotherapy group and one in the radiotherapy group) were due to either intercurrent disease or late treatment-related toxicity. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant chemotherapy given during and after radiotherapy for high-risk endometrial cancer did not improve 5-year overall survival, although it did increase failure-free survival. Women with high-risk endometrial cancer should be individually counselled about this combined treatment. Continued follow-up is needed to evaluate long-term survival. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society, Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant and Cancer Australia, L'Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, and Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute